Chelsea is hot.

I am pretty sure that there is global warming. The melting of ice caps is evidence of this. Collaborative evidence is the decreasing population of polar bears and rising water levels.

But, I do not think it's fair to say that it's entirely the fault of human activity. There is evidence that other factors are contributing to global warming, although to what extent I don't know. I think we should pursue cleaner and more efficient energy, and share this technology with emerging nations, but we should not neglect that it's in the interest of environmental groups to increase their power by exaggerating the problem and what we can do about it. Seriously, shutting down coal plants and substituting them with less efficient ones that raise the cost of energy is just dumb. Secondly, while the US produces a lot of pollution, we should not forget that we are also an industrial powerhouse. Our energy efficiency is light years ahead of emerging powers like China or India, which are less industrialized and also produce a lot of pollution. Even if we produced 0 pollution or greenhouse gases in the US it would have little effect because of the increasing pollution produced in emerging countries. If you want to have a real effect, then you would be better off investing in cost effective energy alternatives in China than lobbying to close a coal plant in the US. But environmental groups don't do that, because, well, they are more interested in the power they can grab.

Now if you can invent a viable and cost effective alternative to our polluting methods, I am happy to look it to it. I may even be happy to invest in such a project. But seriously, this global warming scare with demands for radical change seems to be more of an elaborate power play than a practical solution.

Kemp,

Hehe, I'm sure they have their red tape. I heard about cars and trucks not accounted for by supply dug up in the ground on base property, because it was cheaper and demanded less effort than modifying the inventory. Nonetheless, as BW implies, the military gets the job done.

BW,

Well having a "conservative" base in the sense of self-reliance, discipline and cohesion and such, is an essential component of a strong country or organization. Liberal "nanny state" crap removes incentives to be productive and increases the number of parasites who mooch off of the state... I call it economic conservatism. But then there's religious conservatism, which I am just not very fond of.

I see the military as having very high economic conservative values, and this is essential to its success. While it's also religiously conservative as well, I don't see it as essential to their success. Many who were weak religiously, for example, were very powerful and influential leaders because of their economically conservative outlook.

I imagine it's also true that the military is entrenched in its commitment to the constitution. But I would hope that any person patriotic and loyal to their country would forsake the constitution if it were necessary to save their country from ruin. Don't you think it's messed up to say "yeah I know Rome is burning, but... this document I swore an oath to explicitly states that I shall not intervene."

I'm all ready psyched up for the establishment of a military autocracy. US electorate = epic fail... twice!

Is it me or is Obama alienating Britain?

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> Nope.

The thing with the EU is that the only reason why it "works" is because all the countries have relatively close ties.

Now, I could see the US and Canada easily fit this mold and join in.  Japan?  Yup.  Australia?  More than likely.  South Africa?  Eh, I guess... hell, maybe even Turkey.

But Russia?  Hell no!

The problem is Russia doesn't have the internal checks that other nations have.  That means they're politically a loose cannon, so to speak.  No way I would want a shared currency with Russia.>

Err you misinterpreted me. I meant to the border of Russia! That means most every country in between the Atlantic and the Russian border, in Europe.

Because any normative (ought or should) can not be empirically tested or demonstrated.

Ok I exaggerated .

But he's a famous Brit in secular circles haha.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_1Gpt6dKFo

I plan on living forever. I know that if I give Acolyte enough money and a lab, he'll eventually invent a pill to indefinitely stop the aging process .